/m/nba

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

With the Saturday announcement that Minnesota Timberwolves forward Kevin Love won't take part in the FIBA Basketball World Cup tournament in Spain, the task of securing an automatic bid for the 2016 Olympics and defending its gold medal gets a whole lot harder yet again, as LaMarcus Aldridge (Portland Trailblazers), Kawhi Leonard (San Antonio Spurs), Blake Griffin (Los Angeles Clippers) also bowed out recently and left Team USA managing director Jerry Colangelo lamenting the unwelcome challenge of reworking his shrinking roster.

Colangelo also made it clear previously that he's open to the idea of adding someone from the Team USA Select team that is competing against Team USA during the Las Vegas training camp. The forwards in that group include Mason Plumlee (Brooklyn Nets), Draymond Green (Golden State Warriors), rookie Doug McDermott (Chicago Bulls) and Tobias Harris (Orlando Magic).

Sources say there continues to be ongoing dialogue toward a deal and there is some sense that the Suns might increase their offer slightly; there has also been talk that Bledsoe’s camp might agree to a short-term deal that gets Bledsoe into free agency again inside the next three seasons.

A few teams have inquired about a sign-and-trade for Bledsoe, mostly at the urging of his camp. However, the Suns seemed less than interested, according to one team that inquired.

How strong are Spain, France and Lithuania supposed to be in this thing? Argentina sounds like an African soccer national team (where'd all the money go, plus Ginobili was ruled out.

spain is #2 in the world. gasol/gasol/ibaka/rudy/calderon/navorro/rubio
france is a lot less strong without parker running things.
brazil is stronger than people realize. splitter/nene/varejao is as good a front line as anyone else in the world. and barbosa should be able to get buckets in this setting.
australia could have been dangerous if they had a full roster. not having mills or bogut really cripples them.
serbia and croatia have a lot of young talent, but probably aren't a threat.
argentina has to fall off the table at some point. their old guys are really old and their young ones do not appear to be very good.
lithuania does not look overly impressive.

i will probably root for turkey. i like omer asik a lot and the sixers have the rights to furkan aldemir so it'd be nice if he has a strong tournament. the sixers also have saric playing for croatia and micic playing for serbia.

Turkey was a massive disappointment in last year's FIBA despite having Asik / Ilyasova / Turkoglu though, their guard play was horrendous and their 2 NBA wing has either declined and or very inconsistent.

According to league sources, an “ominous development” has arisen with sides still “very far apart” in contract negotiations. It has even escalated to the point where the “relationship is on the express lane to being ruined,” a source with knowledge of the situation informed CSNNW.com.

Unless they take back Nash, I don't see what plausible way a S&T work with the Lakers. besides, Bledsoe don't make much sense with Kobe either, and certainly won't change where the team is going in the next few years.

Bledsoe makes plenty of sense for the Lakers with Kobe, and I wanted the FO to make either him or Monroe a big offer, to force PHX/DET to match. But while I am sure Gold Star has some refs in mind, (like random Lakers fans trolling ESPN or PHX sites) Lakers fans on-line are not talking about it right now. The topic du jour is the Scott hire. There was a brief Bledsoe period after the S/T rumor, but little since then. The only people talking a lot about Bledsoe right now are PHX fans.

In trying to figure out how this move could possibly make sense, I have decided that it means the Wolfs already agreed to send Barea out in a Love trade.

Barea and a Cleve pick to Philly, Love to Cleve, Wiggins, Bennett, Young to Wolfs.

Mo Williams brings Minny up to 15 guaranteed contracts, plus Glenn Robinson III. There's no way they're taking on more guaranteed contracts in a trade than they send out. I really like the idea of including Philly not only as a way to get a starting-caliber PF but also to dump extraneous players like Barea; I'd send Bennett there as well. I believe the Sixers only have 7 guys with guaranteed deals right now, and 1 of them is expected to miss all or most of the season.

The Wolves have a crazy glut of players at PG/SG/SF, so in getting Wiggins they should probably deal more than just Barea from the non-Rubio set. How about this?

If Philly is involved, it'll probably look something like that, although Cavs aren't going to trade Waiters and Wiggins. It will be one or the other.

i'm uncomfortable with the implication that wiggins and waiters value are in any way comparable. if cleveland wants to keep waiters, that's probably negotiable, but there's no possible deal if wiggins isn't involved.

i'm uncomfortable with the implication that wiggins and waiters value are in any way comparable. if cleveland wants to keep waiters, that's probably negotiable, but there's no possible deal if wiggins isn't involved.

I agree with that. Just saying that there will have to be multiple players involved due to salaries, and they're not dealing both Wiggins and Waiters. (well, unless they get a SG they like back, somehow, I guess)

Grantland's Zach Lowe reported earlier this month on the NBA's proposed changes, which are essentially an attempt to squeeze the lottery odds at either extreme toward a more balanced system in which all 14 teams have a relatively similar chance at the no. 1 pick.
...
The rough draft of this plan was met with opposition by 76ers management, which is in the midst of a multiseason rebuilding project that is dependent on a high pick next year. The 76ers, sources said, are hoping to get the NBA to delay the plan's implementation for at least a year because it would act as a de facto punishment while just playing by the rules that have been in place.

The 76ers, however, may struggle to gain support from Silver or fellow teams for holding off on the changes. Philadelphia's planned sink to the bottom has caused a drag on revenues in one of the league's largest markets and has upset some other teams, sources said.

i have 2 thoughts:
1, the sixers have a right to complain about the timing of these changes. they've made plans for this offseason and with the draft and most of free agency already passed, changing the rules of the game now is unfair to them.

2, if the point of the changes is to fix the lottery, then there's no harm in waiting another year to implement it. rushing the process now seems a bit prejudicial against the sixers and maybe a couple of other teams, too.

i have 2 thoughts:
1, the sixers have a right to complain about the timing of these changes. they've made plans for this offseason and with the draft and most of free agency already passed, changing the rules of the game now is unfair to them.

2, if the point of the changes is to fix the lottery, then there's no harm in waiting another year to implement it. rushing the process now seems a bit prejudicial against the sixers and maybe a couple of other teams, too.

1. The rules are equally unfair to everyone since everyone has been playing under the same rules and will be playing under the new rules.

2. If there's no harm in waiting one year, there's no harm in waiting ten.

Rushing the process isn't prejudicial against the Sixers specifically, it's prejudicial against teams that would rather not play at all. The Sixers aren't trying to win (and there are other teams). They aren't even trying to compete. As a fan of the NBA, it's disgusting. What's the point in them being in the NBA? I'd much rather the Bulls just get the wins by forfeit than have to waste the time and energy travelling and playing the games. Much less even contemplate caring about the game that one side doesn't care about.

The real movement here isn't the fan or media outrage, it's the owners. How do you think Mark Cuban and Paul Allen and all the other owners feel about this? They're probably pretty angry that they have to share 1/30th of their merch sales, tv deals, and revenue sharing with a team that is taking a mulligan on the year. While Philly's sending a D-League team (+ MKG and Noel) out there, the other owners (mostly) are paying real NBA players real money. I think the tipping point was when Philly drafted two guys in the lottery that won't play this season. That's ridiculous.

1. The rules are equally unfair to everyone since everyone has been playing under the same rules and will be playing under the new rules.

equity is not the same thing as equality. the sixers will be more negatively affected by this rule change than any other team and i think they have a right to complain about that. though it also appears that silver and the board of governors either do not care or think that is a feature of their scheme rather than a bug.

2. If there's no harm in waiting one year, there's no harm in waiting ten.

that's not what i'm saying.

the lottery is broken, but i'm skeptical as to whether this plan will be an improvement. and if it goes into effect this year, it will have to have been pushed through in a short time period and that only makes me more skeptical.

the lottery is broken, but i'm skeptical as to whether this plan will be an improvement.

There are going to be some major weird moments should this system be implemented (i.e. good team misses the playoffs by a game - I'm thinking of the year the Warriors won 50 but still missed - then wins the #1 pick) that are going to make everyone crazy, or the #13 and #14 teams finishing with picks 2 and 3. It still all comes back to the fundamental problem - the league wants to have a lottery but then wants the "right" team to win it every time. It don't work that way.

also, i think the NBA is going in the right direction w/r/t competitive balance.

getting max contracts down to 4/5 years instead of 6/7 has been huge on that front. the ridiculous team killing contracts that were given to mediocre players like kenny thomas and steven hunter are not nearly as numerous or as onerous as they were just a decade ago. teams can still make stupid decisions, but the long term impact of those stupid decisions is more limited now. and that is a very good thing.

the sixers situation is an outlier. they're doing what they are because they took their shot and missed. if the andrew bynum trade did not blow up so spectacularly, things would be different. but it did blow up. they didn't have to trade jrue holiday, but they did. they didn't have to draft an injured player last year, but they did. they didn't have to draft another injured player this year, but they did. and they didn't have to draft a euro-stash, but they did.

those are all decisions that the sixers will have to live with, one way or the other.

but what i see going on here is a double-jeopardy type thing. if things don't work out the sixers will be hated for doing things wrong. but if things do work out, they'll be hated for doing the right things the wrong way.

If the 76ers are complaining that the new rules make the franchise's tanking strategy harder, I'm more in favor of it.

The product they have been putting on the floor has been an absolute joke. I'm not spending a dime on them, and while I admit to being somewhat intrigued early last season that the players might be able to torpedo management's plan to screw the fans with amazing effort, in the long run the lack of talent won out and the coach trying to lose games really helped as well.

Sometimes I look forward to the end of the Hinkie era, honestly. Sometimes I just don't care.

Sometimes I look forward to the end of the Hinkie era, honestly. Sometimes I just don't care.

Yes, because the 14 months in which Hinkie has been in charge and brought in potential franchise changing talent has been so much worse than the decade prior where the team was, at best, a first round doormat. Give me a ####### break. As a Knicks fan, I wish I was so unlucky.

if you sign a high level FA from another team, you give them your draft pick. if you sign a guy over the mid level from another team, you give up your 2nd rounder. picks can still be traded, but you can not sign those guys if your out of picks etc. (on top of needing the cap space obviously.)

that kinda both prevent tanking and still help teams that can't keep their FAs. And the draft pick becomes random, so you don't know if your giving up the 30th pick or the 1st pick.

That way, instead of tanking out right, you probably want to at least keep a team of guys who are good enough for other teams to sign.

The product they have been putting on the floor has been an absolute joke. I'm not spending a dime on them, and while I admit to being somewhat intrigued early last season that the players might be able to torpedo management's plan to screw the fans with amazing effort, in the long run the lack of talent won out and the coach trying to lose games really helped as well.

it's been 1 year. i know it seems longer since they've jammed a ton of tanking into that time, but it's still just one ####### year.

this coming season will be year number two, but the point still stands. this hasn't been a decade of tanking, it's been a decade of competitive sub-mediocrity followed by 13 months (so far) of tanking.

With all the talk the last couple of years about tanking and the lottery, and with where the Lakers are, I have been thinking about some of these issues. I think it is actually pretty complicated, as sports issues go. First, given the nature of the sport, there is no way to make everybody happy and make everybody feel like their team will have a shot fairly soon if the team is well-run. Gilbert and Co. have mostly done a lousy job running Cleveland, and Cleveland is IMO as likely to be in the Finals this year as any team--more likely, in fact, if they get Love. Other teams that have been pretty well-run recently, like, say, Utah, which IMO has done a pretty good job of drafting guys during their rebuild; or Atlanta, which has some nice players and is pretty good at payroll management, may be good at some point but may never win anything and are a great distance from contention right now. Changing the lottery, getting rid of the max salary, whatever--none of those things will change the nature of the sport.

Second, I can see both sides of the 76ers argument. But I think it is important to remember that not all 37-45 teams are exactly alike. Morey is taking some heat right now because of BoshParsonsGate, but he was able to snag Harden and then Howard without ever going the Hinkie route. Being in position with decent/good players and other assets to try to move on a star when the opportunity arises to do so, while keeping a decent team on the floor, seems to me be as legit an approach in this era of the NBA as doing what Hinkie is doing in Philadelphia.

The other thing I have been thinking about is the fan experience, the different kinds of fans, and how that affects the conversation. I know Lakers fans who have basically no interest in this team, other than mild curiosity about Kobe, and are pissed that they are not fully tanking, since the team's absolute ceiling is probably about 42 wins. But I know other fans who just want the team to be decent, interesting, play hard, and provide some entertainment when they turn on TWC at 730 after dinner on a weeknight. These people are OK with the Lakers' off-season. They want to see Lin, want to see Randle, and just want the organization to put a product on the floor that is worth watching. So, I could see how some 76ers fans would see Hinkie as being pretty ballsy and awesome, while others would be very irritated by what he is doing--and many might have both feelings.

There are going to be some major weird moments should this system be implemented (i.e. good team misses the playoffs by a game - I'm thinking of the year the Warriors won 50 but still missed - then wins the #1 pick) that are going to make everyone crazy

Really? I think if the Suns had gotten the #1 pick this year, people would generally have loved that. (Obviously not in Philly or Milwaukee, but on average leaguewide.)

this coming season will be year number two, but the point still stands. this hasn't been a decade of tanking, it's been a decade of competitive sub-mediocrity followed by 13 months (so far) of tanking.

So? Are they supposed to be commended for NOT tanking before this past season? The only reason these rule changes would hurt the 76ers inordinately right now is because they've managed themselves terribly for so long. It's not the league's responsibility to continue to operate a lottery system that encourages terrible basketball so the Sixers can benefit from putting out an embarrassing product. I can see how Sixers fans would be upset by this, but I don't see anything commendable about putting out garbage, dressing it up in expensive jerseys, and charging people money to watch it.

this coming season will be year number two, but the point still stands. this hasn't been a decade of tanking, it's been a decade of competitive sub-mediocrity followed by 13 months (so far) of tanking.

See, I can suffer through incompetent leadership much better than I can suffer through trying to fail. While I realize many 76ers fans think I'm nuts, mainly due to my reluctance to get on board with this sure-fire (so I'm told) strategy for which there is no other option (again, quite debatable) to get back to some glorious times for the franchise. However, there are a few things I really have a problem with, and one of them is

I don't see anything commendable about putting out garbage, dressing it up in expensive jerseys, and charging people money to watch it.

It's not quite fraud, but what is going on certainly in the same vein - something more akin to bait & switch.

I'd argue that part of the reason Philly is getting attention for their tactics is that they aren't doing a bait and switch. (Mind you, we're talking about somewhat different audiences, I suspect.) That is to say, they are being unusually transparent and direct in their tactics, which among other things makes the league look bad.
Sidenote: as to "with this sure-fire (so I'm told) strategy..."
It definitely is not sure-fire - it's more of high-risk, high-reward. If you're the kind of person that values championships over competitiveness, it's probably the right move (imo). If not, it aim't.

Like robinred, I think that there's more than one "valid" emotional response to this kind of thing. Personally, I've rooted for teams on the 45 win treadmill and teams that tanked trying to build something bigger and preferred the latter, but whatever floats yer boat.

****

I'd be careful with being overly blanket in saying something like "first round picks are so valuable and second round picks are nearly worthless". A high second round pick is worth as much as a low first, more in some instances.

****

I would support some flattening of odds but not then pure flattening that led to Ewing to Knicks and would likely lead to teams losing at the end to avoid making the playoffs as an eight seed.

As I've said before, I agree - less because of the Ewing scenario, more to prevent teams from not wanting to make the playoffs ... that's a far more troubling type of tanking than what we see now, imo.

****

In roster news:
MWP to China. The Tibor Pleiss will he or won't he come to OKC saga continues. Mike Scott reportedly mulling over a big CSKA offer. Mel Ely and Hilton Armstrong waived.

I agree that I overstated the gap between first and second round choices. But in terms of compensation picks the point remains. If you have to give up a first round pick to sign a free agent, no bad team will sign any free agents since their first round picks are more valuable per dollar than most free agents. If you have to give up a second round pick, then it won't have any real effect since teams do mostly treat those as discard pile and some sell them for cash.

Really? I think if the Suns had gotten the #1 pick this year, people would generally have loved that. (Obviously not in Philly or Milwaukee, but on average leaguewide.)

I agree, and I think in the end Orlando winning twice in a row was good the league, the Shaq/Hardaway team was a great, fun team to watch. I think going to an unweighted or barely weight lottery where dropping one or two spots doesn't significantly change your odds would be fine.

So? Are they supposed to be commended for NOT tanking before this past season? The only reason these rule changes would hurt the 76ers inordinately right now is because they've managed themselves terribly for so long. It's not the league's responsibility to continue to operate a lottery system that encourages terrible basketball so the Sixers can benefit from putting out an embarrassing product. I can see how Sixers fans would be upset by this, but I don't see anything commendable about putting out garbage, dressing it up in expensive jerseys, and charging people money to watch it.

i'm not saying the league can't do it; i'm saying the sixers have the right to speak up for their own interest. if the scheme was agreed to in february/march/april, that would be one thing; but doing it now, after the draft and after free agency is another story.

and yes, i do think it's noteworthy to point out that this hasn't been a decade of constant tanking. they took their shot 2 years ago, but when the bynum situation played out the way it did there was no possibility of retooling.

I am a crackpot but I still think the best way to end tanking is to eliminate the draft. I don't think that will affect competitive balance in a league with a salary cap.

that might end tanking, but it would create another problem, in that teams would strip their rosters of talent/salary to make a run at signing those rookies.

I agree, and I think in the end Orlando winning twice in a row was good the league, the Shaq/Hardaway team was a great, fun team to watch. I think going to an unweighted or barely weight lottery where dropping one or two spots doesn't significantly change your odds would be fine.

And imagine how interesting Shaq/Webber would have been.

As has been said already, I would usually hate changing the rules mid-stream but if the consensus is that what Philadelphia is doing is distasteful and bad for the league, then having a rule change that is effectually punitive kind of makes sense.

I'd rather link the lottery odds to conference standing as opposed to overall record. That's a better reflection of how much you need to improve to make the playoffs, and playoff contention is more important than wins and losses from a competitive balance standpoint. I think flattening the odds is a good idea though equal odds would lead to perverse incentives. Here's a proposal:

I would support some flattening of odds but not then pure flattening that led to Ewing to Knicks and would likely lead to teams losing at the end to avoid making the playoffs as an eight seed.

As I've said before, I agree - less because of the Ewing scenario, more to prevent teams from not wanting to make the playoffs ... that's a far more troubling type of tanking than what we see now, imo.

What if, to go along with a flattening of odds, the league also did something a little kookier like this:
- like now, there are three lottery winners; they draft 1-3;
- after eliminating those teams, have the seven worst records draft 4-10;
- slot the eight first-round playoff losers in spots 11-18;
- now take the four remaining non-playoff teams at 19-22.

That rewards making the playoffs over just missing, for if you don't win one of the top three slots, you actually wind up drafting after the teams that did make the playoffs.

i'm not saying the league can't do it; i'm saying the sixers have the right to speak up for their own interest. if the scheme was agreed to in february/march/april, that would be one thing; but doing it now, after the draft and after free agency is another story.

The Sixers have the right to say whatever they want in their own interest, and the rest of us have to right to point out that they're losing games on purpose, putting 76er jerseys on a D-League team and calling it NBA basketball and charging NBA prices. You can say they're just playing the system and I won't argue, but I'm certainly not going to sympathize with an organization has to tank multiple years just to clear the air of the stench of the mess they made of themselves.

The Sixers have the right to say whatever they want in their own interest, and the rest of us have to right to point out that they're losing games on purpose, putting 76er jerseys on a D-League team and calling it NBA basketball and charging NBA prices. You can say they're just playing the system and I won't argue, but I'm certainly not going to sympathize with an organization has to tank multiple years just to clear the air of the stench of the mess they made of themselves.

2 years. technically, 2 years is multiple years, but if they can do in 2 years what sacramento still hasn't been able to do in the last 10, i think they deserve more credit for that than ridicule.

the players and coaches aren't tanking. they compete to win every game and i guarantee that guys like hollis thompson and brandon davies, guys who are literally playing for their NBA lives, put more effort into playing on last year's team than any veteran you could get to come to play for the sixers right now.

i know someone a few comments up said that makes this whole thing even worse, but seriously #### you. what do you want them to do, sign al harrington to a 5 year contract? because to get anyone good to come to philly right now, you're either gonna have to sacrifice A. character B. talent or C. cap space. A creates distractions and hurts your teams' ability to develop young players. B doesn't make you better. and C hurts you a lot more in the long term than it helps you in the short term.

at least davies and thompson work hard every day and play every game like it may be their last. that sets the tone for MCW and noel and embiid and saric and mcdaniels and mcrae and grant and wroten. with how young this team was and is, that has value.

2 years. technically, 2 years is multiple years, but if they can do in 2 years what sacramento still hasn't been able to do in the last 10, i think they deserve more credit for that than ridicule.

--

They haven't done jack yet and may never do a thing. Embiid may be Bowie and they have to wait two years for Saric, who may be KMart Toni Kukoc. MCW is fine but not a game-changer. Noel will be very disruptive on defense; we will see about the rest.

I agree with you that they don't deserve ridicule, but I don't see them as deserving of any particular ups, either. Every argument you are making can be turned around: the lesson of a franchise like Sacramento isn't TANK! it's "High lotto picks may well pretty much get you diddly-squat." The teams in the East that got better last year--Toronto and Washington--did it by adding veterans to a couple of lotto picks (and Wash. even had room for Al Harrington). Veteran players on decent contracts be used to fill holes, help make it easier for young guys to adjust to the league and learn about NBA life, can be used in trades, may help to attract FAs, and can help you to avoid 26-game losing streaks. All of those things "have value" as well.

I see a parallel between Hinkie and Morey right now, in that the anti-Morey faction on the internet is floating the idea that Morey, even more than a typical GM, simply sees his players as "pieces", or "assets", lines of numbers to be flipped and constantly re-valued the way a hyperactive guy in a fantasy league does. Hinkie seems to be bringing "NBA Mogul" or an as-yet-non-existent "OOTPNBA" game to life, by deliberately losing a whole bunch of games in the hopes of something better at some future time. He may be proven right, but there is no autoplay function in the real world.

Every argument you are making can be turned around: the lesson of a franchise like Sacramento isn't TANK! it's "High lotto picks may well pretty much get you diddly-squat." The teams in the East that got better last year--Toronto and Washington--did it by adding veterans to a couple of lotto picks (and Wash. even had room for Al Harrington).

i agree. indiana also got good a few years ago when they signed david west. and charlotte got good when they went out and got al jefferson. flip the coin again and joe dumars can offer a master class on signing ill-advised contracts just because you have the money.

but that's another thing about the way this rebuild is being done. the sixers crammed 4 lottery picks over the last two years. that's important not just because of the talent it represents, but also because it gives the sixers 2 more offseasons to use their cap space before having to extend MCW or noel. making 4 picks over 4 years means that by the time you get good, you'll have one offseason (at most) to to sign a quality veteran with your cap space.

but making 4 picks over 2 years means that even though the sixers didn't use their cap room this year, they will still have it next year. and maybe the year after. so instead of rushing to sign eric bledsoe and then finding themselves SOL when durant, love, aldridge, lebron, howard, harden hit free agency over the next two years, they've kept their powder dry now in the hopes it'll pack more of a punch later.

The teams in the East that got better last year--Toronto and Washington--did it by adding veterans to a couple of lotto picks

This is basically what the Suns did post-Nash or Memphis did after Pau Gasol as well. It's ok to dump some contracts short term, stink it up and hit the lottery, but you also need to reinvest your cap space wisely, to go along with whatever you picks you get. Get Zach Randolph or Gortat in someone else's dump trade, give up your cap space for year to get Eric Bledsoe, sign guys with potential to be bigger than their current roles like Dragic or Lowry. Guys like Valanciunas, Conley and even Wall weren't going to turn those teams around by themselves, Len might never do much of anything for Phoenix.

the players and coaches aren't tanking. they compete to win every game and i guarantee that guys like hollis thompson and brandon davies, guys who are literally playing for their NBA lives, put more effort into playing on last year's team than any veteran you could get to come to play for the sixers right now.

I think there's a difference between the players & coaches. Brett Brown is absolutely coaching to lose games. Playing the fastest pace as the worst offensive team in the league is simply a way to lose games more subtly than mainstream folks will recognize.

I can absolutely hope the players do well, while rooting for management to find new jobs elsewhere.

While people with a decent understanding of the NBA realize what is going on, the concept of being D-League bad was foreign to a lot of people here in Philly, and still is somewhat. In a city where you don't even dominate basketball news, due to college being pretty much on par, you should avoid alienating large segments of the fan base. When guys like me won't watch or even attend 76ers games for free, that's not good for your fanbase - but maybe they can get attendance & interest up when they have something really dynastic.

Once the 76ers deal Thad Young, your veteran leadership is Eric Maynor, Tony Wroten, and Elliot Williams. While it's true they weren't around for the old regime's bad 76ers teams, the young guys are going to have really nobody to lean on. We'll see if that helps or hurts their development.

Dumping Thad Young would shameful, assuming he's not demanding out. He's young enough, good enough, versatile and on a favorable enough contract to where they should try make him a piece of their next not terrible team.

Dumping Turner and Hawes I understand, Turner isn't very good and Hawes has some limitations to where he might not be good to build around, he's probably better as bench player like he'll be for the Clippers. But Young seems like the exact type of veteran you'd want to have around your new players.

when the team gets good, fans will come back. it might get harder to bring fans back the longer the tank goes, but right now, that's as in depth as the calculus goes.

which isn't to say that the fanbase won't get restless when the team has 5 wins on january 1, because they will. but if we're being honest, the real inflection point will come about a year later. if they do not show substantial improvement by january 1, 2016, then there will be real and significant problems. not just fan morale or spirit of the game, but a roster crunch and major cap and cohesiveness problems that occur when you have a lot of young players and begin to sign some to extensions, but not others.

Dumping Thad Young would shameful, assuming he's not demanding out. He's young enough, good enough, versatile and on a favorable enough contract to where they should try make him a piece of their next not terrible team.

young has asked to be traded before. he also has an early termination option at the end of this season.

The problem with tanking is, once you go down, it's really really hard to get back up. Draft picks aren't guarantees. In addition, management can always use an excuse to keep cutting payroll and not pay anyone. The Sixers are $20 million under the floor right now. They aren't even trying. Hell, you could give Al Harrington a max and not come close to hitting the cap.

I think these long term "lose for five year" plans are really bad. I don't think they work all that much, and it's terrible for the NBA in a fan and competitive sense. The teams that do hit it in the lottery (anecdotally), go down, get one good hit, and then bounce back up. If they even go down at all.

I disagree with this. The average fan knew the Sixers' chance at contending was over as soon as it turned out the Andrew Bynum trade had destroyed the team, about two games into the Andrew Bynum era. But in that season you could watch a game and root for them to win.

But now the team is telling fans "You'd have to be stupid to watch us. You'd have to be an absolute idiot to pay money to watch us. Come back in two years when we're not intentionally losing. We are literally intentionally losing. We aren't rebuilding, all we are doing is trying to lose. If we win a game, we throw chairs in the office and scream at the coach that he'd better start losing games again. Also, this losing team is not a team of young players who you can watch develop into a good team. When we're good again, one or possibly two of these players will be here. Also, none of these are players you've heard of. Since we know we're going to be bad, why spend money? This is a group of random players doing random stuff. Ideally we would forfeit every game and just hold practices for a year." This has only happened once before in sports history, with the Astros. Fans don't yet know what to make of it, but they know the concept of "fans" becomes impossible when it happens.

like anthony bennett? noel was the best player they could have gotten at that spot. he was, by far, the best player they could have taken.

the same goes for embiid. if he was healthy he would have been the #1 pick, but he wasn't and that allowed the sixers to get him at a point in the draft where they should not have been able to.

saric is kind of a different situation, but it seems like he also dropped in the draft because he wasn't going to play in the NBA for 2 years. i'm not a huge fan of him, but i think there's a pretty good chance that he's the best player taken outside of the top 10 in this draft.

in all 3 cases, there's a strong likelihood that they wound up with the best player available specifically because they weren't able to play. and even though all 3 will miss entire seasons, they're gonna be on the court the next time the sixers might have a chance to be good. and since that's kind of the whole point of rebuilding, i don't see too much of a problem with it. for now.

The problem with tanking is, once you go down, it's really really hard to get back up. Draft picks aren't guarantees. In addition, management can always use an excuse to keep cutting payroll and not pay anyone. The Sixers are $20 million under the floor right now. They aren't even trying. Hell, you could give Al Harrington a max and not come close to hitting the cap.

I think these long term "lose for five year" plans are really bad. I don't think they work all that much, and it's terrible for the NBA in a fan and competitive sense. The teams that do hit it in the lottery (anecdotally), go down, get one good hit, and then bounce back up. If they even go down at all.

i agree. if the sixers are still rebuilding in 5 years, that will be a massive failure. if they're still hopeless 18 months from now, that will be a massive failure.

i really do agree on this point. prolonged tanking is counterproductive. i would honestly prefer to not tank this season, but that went out the window when they drafted embiid. which they absolutely should have done. drafting saric is salt in the proverbial wound, but i don't think zach lavine or adreian payne was turning a 20 win team into a 40 win team, so harping on it strikes me as theater more than legitimate criticism.

if the sixers won the lottery and drafted wiggins i would be all in on trying to improve the team immediately. but there's nothing to improve right now.

There's a lot of parallels between what the Sixers are doing right now and what the Cubs are doing. Oddly enough, thanks to my own homerism, I have no problem with the Cubs' plan yet find myself agreeing with most of the points being made against the Sixers' plan here. Obviously, there's a lot of differences between roster (and farm) building between basketball and baseball, but a lot of things steagles is saying hit exactly home with me. Especially this:

this coming season will be year number two, but the point still stands. this hasn't been a decade of tanking, it's been a decade of competitive sub-mediocrity followed by 13 months (so far) of tanking.

Oddly, the Cubs most competitive decade in forever was the 2000's, but the point still stands. So many Cubs threads over the years since Theo has taken over (season #3 with a ####-awful major league product) have been arguing whether or not this approach is the way to go. It's really easy to see the light at the end of the tunnel now, but the point remains was there another way to approach this than being completely putrid for so long? I've been 100% behind Theo's plan from the start, and so I've had no problems with the slow and massive rebuild. If this prospect group turns out the way it can, it'll be worth it. But if not, which tends to happen quite frequently in baseball, I still think it would have been the right move. Yet, why does the Sixers taking bother me? I don't know.

...And [the sixers] are not alone. Teams dealt first-round picks with various protections under lottery rules the league now wants to scrap. Take the situation between the Lakers and Suns: The Lakers owe Phoenix a top-five protected first-round pick in the 2015 draft, the last goodie Phoenix will get from the Steve Nash trade. The Lakers keep that pick if it falls within the top five; otherwise, it goes to the Suns.

If the Lakers finish with, say, the eighth-worst record in the league next season, the chances of that pick leaping into the top five might be very different if the lottery determines the first six picks instead of the first three.

Tanking like this can even work when it fails. The Bobcats broke up an aging, pricey roster ahead of the 2011-12 season and bricked their way into a historically awful 7-59 record. They lost the Anthony Davis lottery, ending up with Michael Kidd-Gilchrist instead.

The cap flexibility they got from dumping Gerald Wallace, Stephen Jackson, Tyson Chandler, and (eventually) Boris Diaw netted extra draft picks and the space to gamble in free agency on Al Jefferson and Lance Stephenson. They snagged another extra first-rounder by swallowing the extra year on Ben Gordon’s contract, a deal that worked out about as well as possible when the Pistons fell to no. 9 in the lottery and forked over the pick that became Noah Vonleh.

That said, there is cautious and justified optimism that equalizing the odds at something like 11 percent for the four or five worst teams will change things on the margins in the league’s basement. Rebuilding teams might be willing to splurge on good players, even though those players might add four or five wins. Those wins don’t do as much damage if the half-dozen worst teams have more or less the same chance of winning the lottery.

The league’s proposal doesn’t do that. But it might be a step in the right direction — a useful in-between structure to the lottery. Implementing any major change like this should likely wait until at least after the 2017 collective bargaining talks. Philly is right to object on that basis.

I agree Cataldi is a clown, but my existence alone is proof enough against that statement. I would go to 5 or so games a year, sometimes more. Before work too me to the distant suburbs and long hours, it would be closer to 10. I know at least a few dozen people who are/were 76ers fans that are boycotting them, and for at least one the tanking was the last straw.

The average fan knew the Sixers' chance at contending was over as soon as it turned out the Andrew Bynum trade had destroyed the team, about two games into the Andrew Bynum era.

There was a lot of hope he'd come back and play at least decently and that he could return to form - this was true for maybe half the year.

But now the team is telling fans "You'd have to be stupid to watch us. You'd have to be an absolute idiot to pay money to watch us. Come back in two years when we're not intentionally losing. We are literally intentionally losing. We aren't rebuilding, all we are doing is trying to lose. If we win a game, we throw chairs in the office and scream at the coach that he'd better start losing games again.

I agree with this 100%. Honestly, sometimes I think I'm a moron for even wasting energy complaining; that I should just ignore basketball, and hope the 76ers either fire management, leave town, or that it works for them. I doubt I would pick up another pro team.

I agree with this 100%. Honestly, sometimes I think I'm a moron for even wasting energy complaining; that I should just ignore basketball, and hope the 76ers either fire management, leave town, or that it works for them. I doubt I would pick up another pro team.

This makes no sense to me. I can understand not wanting to watch the product at present because you feel it is D-League. I wouldn't feel that way, but I get it. But to be so fed up (again, after 13 months) that you want everyone fired for the crime of saying "Hey, our previous strategy of being mediocre topped out at getting destroyed in Round 1 so we're going to try something different" seems crazy to me. I mean, even if you think there was some other way of doing this, if that other way hadn't worked in the first 13 months would you be saying the same things? I guess it all comes back to why are you so upset already?

The 76ers, as noted, are more like the Astros have been than the Cubs have been, complete with the some in the sabermetric media going, "OOOHHH!!! Smart!" Also, IMO it is a nature-of-the-sport thing. Even a bad baseball team will usually win 60-65 games, or 66, to be exact, like the Cubs did in 2013, and will usually have a shot to win on any given night. But really bad NBA teams lose 75% of the time, and will have a lot of games where you know going in that they have very little chance to win. So to watch a team do that on purpose, more than once, even if there are good reasons for it, is a different kind of thing.

I agree with this 100%. Honestly, sometimes I think I'm a moron for even wasting energy complaining; that I should just ignore basketball, and hope the 76ers either fire management, leave town, or that it works for them. I doubt I would pick up another pro team.

you are. no offense, but there's like 4 people in the world whose opinion on this actually effects whether or not it happens and the rest of us are just pissing in the wind.

I agree Cataldi is a clown, but my existence alone is proof enough against that statement. I would go to 5 or so games a year, sometimes more. Before work too me to the distant suburbs and long hours, it would be closer to 10. I know at least a few dozen people who are/were 76ers fans that are boycotting them, and for at least one the tanking was the last straw.

that guy is a moron. seriously; in the last 3 years, the sixers have new ownership, a new coach and a new GM. everyone who matters in any way has been here 3 years or less, so anyone who says that tanking is the last straw is a fool.

as for the rest of the boycotters, you're free not to buy tickets or watch the games or whatever, but it's a toothless action. the owners have already made 200+ million theoretical dollars on the team according to forbes' valuation, so they're willing to take that hit in the short term. and it's not even a hit since they had a 10MM profit last year, according to the lowe article linked in [1063].

and while you and angelo cataldi might hold your grudges as deeply as baltic nationalists, when the sixers start to win again, there will be enough other people jumping back on the bandwagon to fill the arena. (that's not a moral judgement. i have no problem with people tuning out for the next year and then getting interested again when things start to get interesting again, but all the bluster about it is just a waste, imo).

Really can't believe that any long-term Sixers fan can hold anything against current management. The Sixers have a clearcut plan, are stockpiling talent, being patient and going for upside everywhere they can. That seems a helluva lot better than trying to thread several needles to get an Iguodala/Collins-led team into the ECF or something.

The 76ers, as noted, are more like the Astros have been than the Cubs have been

i disagree with that. i disagree with the cubs comparison, too, tbh.

for a couple reasons, but the most important distinction being that the sixers decision was based on a desire to be competitive, whereas the cubs and astros decisions appear to be motivated primarily to ease the financial burden their owners took on in purchasing their respective franchises.

but the most important distinction being that the sixers decision was based on a desire to be competitive, whereas the cubs and astros decisions appear to be motivated primarily to ease the financial burden their owners took on in purchasing their respective franchises.

Perhaps, but that is also just FO-homer talk. In both cases, (PHI and HOU) ownership decided to really, really suck now, in hopes of being really, really good later. There are differences due to the nature of the sports and the differences in the CBA, but the consumer experiences are in many ways the same: seriously bad team. Just 12 months ago, people were saying the Astros were putting an AAA team out there and calling it a MLB team.

Also, I would suggest that even if Kris Bryant doesn't lead the 2018 Cubs to nirvana, both the Cubs and Astros will have 85-win hat-in-the-ring-teams at some point relatively soon, which could be used as an argument both for and against ground-up rebuilds. You seem to be assuming that things will work out for Hinkie. But they may not.

That seems a helluva lot better than trying to thread several needles to get an Iguodala/Collins-led team into the ECF or something.

Maybe, but I am not sure that 40-42 is always a death sentence in this CBA. It wasn't for Houston. It depends on how you get there and who you have. And I am sure that 19-63 is not always a necessary step on the road to the Finals.

I don't think Hinkie is doing anything dumb, but I don't think that he is Gandalf the Grey, either.

Really can't believe that any long-term Sixers fan can hold anything against current management. The Sixers have a clearcut plan, are stockpiling talent, being patient and going for upside everywhere they can. That seems a helluva lot better than trying to thread several needles to get an Iguodala/Collins-led team into the ECF or something.

I don't think anyone really thinks blowing up a team going nowhere is the problem, but they aren't making an effort to reinvest their cap space yet. I liked the Noel/Holiday for example, Holiday was expensive and not that good and Noel has real upside and they get Saric and another pick. But there is no reason they can't make a trade like that and still put in offers for Bledsoe, Hayward, Monroe or whoever to go with their young high upside players. Even if they add one or two decent free agents this year, they would still likely be bad enough to land another high pick next year.

The 76ers, as noted, are more like the Astros have been than the Cubs have been, complete with the some in the sabermetric media going, "OOOHHH!!! Smart!"

Sure, the Astros have gotten more national attention, especially lately. And their payroll has really bottomed out, but the Cubs have more than cut their's in half in a pretty short time span. I'm not really trying to say it's the same thing, I'm just recognizing my own internal inconsistencies for somewhat similar situations...

i disagree with the cubs comparison, too, tbh.
for a couple reasons, but the most important distinction being that the sixers decision was based on a desire to be competitive, whereas the cubs and astros decisions appear to be motivated primarily to ease the financial burden their owners took on in purchasing their respective franchises.

No, competitiveness is also the Cubs' main motivation. The financial stuff is merely rumor, and one I don't particularly buy for a number of reasons not worth getting into here.

You seem to be assuming that things will work out for Hinkie. But they may not.

yep. but what else can you do at this point. if you think he can do the job, you support him; if you don't, you fire him. so far, while hinkie has done some things that i would not have, i'm firmly behind him. but i can only speak for myself.

But there is no reason they can't make a trade like that and still put in offers for Bledsoe, Hayward, Monroe or whoever to go with their young high upside players.

yes there is. those players will earn max/near max contracts and none of them are good enough to be the best or 2nd best player on a legitimate contender. if you put your money behind them this offseason, that severely limits the potential for you to use that money on someone as good or better the next.

You can't legislate poor management out of the league. If teams are going to strip themselves of talent, well, that talent will go to other teams in the league. It's kind of zero sum, no?

No. Because "talent" doesn't matter, only elite-level talent matters (in the NBA). As mentioned previously when this subject was discussed, cap space is not rare anymore. Lots and lots of team have it every year, including large-market teams. Teams wouldn't even really have to strip their rosters. There's no way any stud rookie is going to go to the Milwaukee Bucks or the Toronto Raptors when he can get equivalent money from the Lakers or the Celtics or the Knicks.

I agree, and I think in the end Orlando winning twice in a row was good the league, the Shaq/Hardaway team was a great, fun team to watch. I think going to an unweighted or barely weight lottery where dropping one or two spots doesn't significantly change your odds would be fine.

Why then is everybody so irate about Cleveland winning three times in four years? What's the difference, other than personal distaste about Gilbert? It comes back to what I was saying before: people want a lottery, but then they want the "right" team to win. Doesn't work that way.

I don't think anyone really thinks blowing up a team going nowhere is the problem, but they aren't making an effort to reinvest their cap space yet.

Again, it's been 13 months. Shouldn't we give this some time? None of the high-upside guys they drafted have even played an NBA game yet but we want them to start spending money as if they're ready to win now?

Even if they add one or two decent free agents this year, they would still likely be bad enough to land another high pick next year.

For all their talentless tanking last season they (a) didn't even finish with the worst record and (b) only ended up with the 3rd pick anyway. If this is the route you choose to go I really think you want to maximize being as absolutely bad as possible because there are no guarantees.

Also, I would suggest that even if Kris Bryant doesn't lead the 2018 Cubs to nirvana, both the Cubs and Astros will have 85-win hat-in-the-ring-teams at some point relatively soon, which could be used as an argument both for and against ground-up rebuilds. You seem to be assuming that things will work out for Hinkie. But they may not.

Simply due to the nature of the sports I'm more confident the 76ers plan will work out than I am the Cubs or Astros will.

Simply due to the nature of the sports I'm more confident the 76ers plan will work out than I am the Cubs or Astros will.

Yup.

but they aren't making an effort to reinvest their cap space yet.

At this phase, you do that by dealing for bad short term contracts that have picks or interesting young players attached (how Toronto got Nogueira, Boston Zeller, etc...) Cap space, if you'll leverage it, is itself an asset. I'd rather do that at this point than play for an RFA unless I think there's a particularly good deal on a young FA out there (I.Thomas might have been an example, though that wasn't a great fit of team and player).

Having said that, I've held for awhile that 15-16 is when they should start to make a move and still do.

So about $44MM/3 yrs for Parker starting in '15-'16. Is that too much? Seems like it could be an overpay, especially since he's smaller, not a great jump shooter and reliant on his speed. He's already 32.